Archive for the WIPO Category (6 posts)

Post navigation

This series of blog posts has turned to looking more closely at the roots of the ‘intangible cultural heritage’ (ICH) concept, laying a foundation for examining the global policy – and thereby framework – from which it draws its strength: the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). For the next couple of posts, I thought it would be helpful to highlight how the ICH definition has developed as one way to trace the history of the 2003 Convention and the issues it has raised over the past several decades through to today.

As a refresher, the current definition of ‘intangible cultural heritage’ (ICH) can be found in Article 2 of the 2003 Convention, which was adopted in 2003 and entered into force in 2006. It states:

The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.

It is important to keep in mind that the 2003 Convention has enjoyed a steady pace of acceptance over these past twelve years, with 178 Member States becoming States Parties to it. Indeed, this widespread popularity lends significant momentum to the potential mainstreaming, or universalization, of the ICH concept, as well as to the construction of a ‘new’ category of heritage at the global level. This is particularly interesting because, in theory, ‘ICH’ represents an immense diversity of cultural beliefs, expressions, practices, and traditions from around the world, which are ‘compatible with human rights instruments’ and the ‘requirements of mutual respect and sustainable development,’ but that are nonetheless nuanced and specific, as well as deeply complex in their own right, let alone when understood as a whole.

On a similar note, the above ICH “domains” are somewhat reminiscent of early anthropological attempts at classifying cultural ‘traits’ or ‘customs’ as universal in expression across diverse cultures. For instance, anthropologist Clark Wissler’s “Universal Culture Pattern” from his 1923 book, Man and Culture, proposed as a tool for scientific analysis and substantiating certain theories at the time about the entirety of human cultural development, provides an interesting comparison, eighty years apart. According to him, all cultures – no matter when or where – possess the following “culture complexes:”

Wissler contended that although this “skeleton of culture” was generalizing in effect, it brings to light basic similarities as opposed to differences in cultural beliefs, expressions, and practices, proving useful in understanding human cultural evolution. He states:

[W]hat happens in the evolution of culture is an elaboration and enrichment of these complexes, a process which we sometimes speak of as progress. We can now comprehend why it is practically impossible to draw satisfactory distinctions between primitive and higher cultures, other than that they differ in complexity, or richness of content.

It goes without saying that for a long while now in anthropology and related fields, the notion of cultural evolution has been viewed as useless (and, most importantly, flat-out discriminatory, to put it lightly) in its attempt to chronologically order cultures, from ‘primitive’/ ‘simple’ to ‘civilized’ / ‘complex.’ Even just a couple of decades later, another well-known anthropologist, A. L. Kroeber, dismissed Wissler’s list as futile since “it is evident that the greater range of cultures considered, and the more diverse these are, the more will the universal elements or common denominators shrink or become vague […] Thereby the most characteristic features of each culture get blurred out.” In 1948, Kroeber pointed out that “[n]o one seems to have developed this idea since it was first set forth in 1923, or to have made serious use of it toward deeper understanding.” In the end, he acknowledged that this universal pattern “boils down to a rough plan of convenience for a preliminary ordering of facts awaiting description or interpretation.” It seems that Wissler would have agreed; although, with the added qualification:

The simplicity of the classification invites objection from those who are fond of contemplating the complexity and largeness of human affairs, for they will say that no such simple scheme can in any way serve as a statement of culture. But such assertions merely dodge the issue, for in everyday affairs we ourselves deal with problems of the hour in similar broad concepts and do it effectively.

More than anything, I bring this up to underscore what an enormous task it is to shape a singular definition for living cultural expressions, practices, and traditions – particularly what is meant by “ICH.” While the inclusion of the above “domains” was the subject of debate during the drafting of the 2003 Convention text, a topic to which I will return later, these long-ago attempts at categorizing cultural ‘domains’ – some overlapping with the above-mentioned ‘ICH’ ones and some not – highlight a possible tendency to universalize culture; that is, to emphasize ‘common denominators’ across cultures and downplay, or potentially neglect, their rich complexities and distinctions. ICH expressions derive their lifeblood from the nuanced knowledges, skills, and meanings embodied by those who keep them vitalized (and ever-changing). It is, therefore, likely that the keys to effectively safeguarding ICH for the future can be found in this rich complexity, through the expertise of their practitioners and on a case-by-case basis. It is safe to say that this should be reflected in safeguarding approaches, including those promoted at the international level, and in the definitions that ground them.

Over more recent decades, in documents tracing the various expert committee meetings and discussions on shaping the ICH definition (and its ‘folklore’ and ‘non-physical heritage’ precursor terms), it was often mentioned just how impossible reaching a consensus on the concept can prove to be. In one working document from 1984 entitled, Consultation of Experts to Define Non-Physical Heritage (CLT-84/CONF.603/COL.1), it is admitted that “[d]efining the non-physical heritage is as complex (and perhaps as frustrating) as any search for a universal definition of human character and culture,” and that in its broadest sense, “non-physical heritage includes virtually all culture.” Yet, UNESCO pushed on, since “[n]o program can begin operations, however, without a working definition…” So, let us see how this rather concise, 21st century definition was shaped (as briefly as possible)!

Later, the 1982 WIPO-UNESCO Model Provisions was strictly concerned with protecting “expressions of folklore” understood as “productions consisting of characteristic elements of the traditional artistic heritage developed and maintained by a community of [name of the country] or by individuals reflecting the traditional artistic expectations of such a community.” The expressions are listed as follows:

(i) verbal expressions, such as folk tales, folk poetry and riddles;

(ii) musical expressions, such as folk songs and instrumental music;

(iii) expressions by action, such as folk dances, plays and artistic forms or rituals; whether or not reduced to a material form; and

Here, it is evident that while the range of folklore is both specific and relatively wide, broader expressions, such as language and traditional knowledge, can fall outside of its scope. The Model Provisions did acknowledge the dynamic and evolving nature of folklore (it is not a “mere souvenir of the past”), as well as the importance of communities in its expression, but often folklore was conceptually tied to the country within which it is practiced (for obvious reasons), such as in this statement on the importance of protecting it:

Folklore is an important cultural heritage of every nation and is still developing – albeit frequently in contemporary forms – even in modern communities all over the world. It is of particular importance to developing countries which more and more recognize folklore as a basis of their cultural identity and as a most important means of self-expression of their peoples both within their own communities and in their relationship to the world around them. Folklore is to these countries increasingly important from the point of view of their social identity, too […]

As the 1980s progressed, questions of protecting folklore from a broader, more interdisciplinary perspective became the focus of UNESCO alone. In the same year that the Model Provisions was adopted, a new program devoted to “Non-Physical Heritage” was created within the organization as a “comprehensive attempt to define, identify, collect, interpret, preserve and promote nonmaterial aspects of culture worldwide,” as stated in the aforementioned 1984 UNESCO working document (the term ‘folklore’ is used interchangeably in this document).

Folklore (in a broader-sense, traditional and popular folk culture) is a group-oriented and tradition based creation of groups or individuals reflecting the expectations of the community as an adequate expression of its cultural and social identity; its standards and values are transmitted orally, by imitation or by other means. Its forms include, among others, language, literature, music, dance, games, mythology, rituals, customs, handicrafts, architecture and other arts.

It is clear that the definition was widened significantly to include a more loosely-categorized array of forms, and the example category headings – softly echoing Wissler’s scheme – remain. However, most striking is the even stronger emphasis placed on the people – “groups or individuals” – who “create” and ‘transmit’ folklore, and express their “cultural and social identity” through it. This acknowledgement of the fundamental role that people play in ICH creation and ‘recreation’ has certainly been retained in the present ICH definition. Indeed, the 2003 Convention’s recognition of the importance of “communities, groups and individuals” (“CGIs” in UNESCO-speak) with respect to their cultural heritage has been heralded as a significant step forward in centralizing CGIs in international cultural heritage policy.

Moving forward, the Committees were also concerned with proposing ways in which folklore can be safeguarded for the future. Ultimately, it was decided that an international instrument in the form of a recommendation to Member States could be useful in promoting a more widespread protection of folklore. This eventually led to the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, which was adopted at the 25th UNESCO General Conference in 1989. The definition for ‘traditional culture and folklore’ presented in the 1989 Recommendation is rather similar to the 1987 one above. Nonetheless, in the next post, we will look more closely at its development into the 1990s, an important decade of great ICH activity, leading to the 2003 Convention.

In the last post, the Folklife at the International Level series took a turn into the world of “intangible cultural heritage” (ICH), a category of heritage on the global stage that developed decades ago, thanks to the joint efforts of WIPO and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). As noted, since the […]

Yet another World Intellectual Property Day has arrived, and what better way to celebrate than to catch up with related developments on the folklife front? So far, this series has explored the international efforts of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in protecting traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) as intellectual property (IP) via IP protections. […]

In the last “Folklife at the International Level” post, Wend Wendland, Director of WIPO’s Traditional Knowledge Division, recounted that the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) was formed by WIPO member states in 2000. The aim was to discuss issues relating to the protection of TCEs (called at […]

In the first of the “Folklife at the International Level” series, I ended with a glimpse into the complex issues that arise when intellectual property (IP) protection is sought for “traditional cultural expressions,” or “TCEs,” the terminology used by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). On its website, WIPO describes such expressions as including “music, […]

The following is a guest post by AFC Folklife Specialist Michelle Stefano. I recently began researching the history of the American Folklife Center’s engagement with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and its efforts in protecting intellectual property (IP) and promoting its importance at international and national levels. Over the past 15 years, AFC […]

Disclaimer

This blog does not represent official Library of Congress communications.

Links to external Internet sites on Library of Congress Web pages do not constitute the Library's endorsement of the content of their Web sites or of their policies or products. Please read our
Standard Disclaimer.